This Socialist Police Officer, Wesley Cheeks, of the Reston Virginia Police Department violates the US Constitutional Civil Rights granted by Article I, and suppresses freedom of speech. Additionally, while Officer Wesley Cheeks violates the Constitutional Rights of an American Citizen, he also informs this citizen that “It ain’t [America] no more, okay?”

Well… it is YOU, Officer Wesley Cheeks of the Reston Virginia Police Department who is not okay, OKAY?

Let them know that, contrary to what their officer thinks, this is STILL America, the Constitution has not yet been scrapped, the First Amendment still applies, and their oath requires that they respect the right to free speech of all Americans, even when the officer does not like the speech. The First Amendment does not just protect speech the officer on the scene agrees with, and he is not free to implement his own mini-constitutional suspension zone.

Be polite, but firm. Don’t use profanity, but let them know that as an Oath Keeper, you don’t appreciate the oath breaker they have on staff.

Courtesy of Stewart at Oath Keeper. Thank you for the updated information, dear.

Let Major Morris know that, contrary to what his officer thinks, this is STILL America, the Constitution has not yet been scrapped, the First Amendment still applies, and their oath requires that they respect the right to free speech of all Americans, even when the officer does not like the speech. The First Amendment does not just protect speech the officer on the scene agrees with, and he is not free to implement his own mini-constitutional suspension zone.

The black cop was so out of line I wrote the assistant chief, left a message for the chief. I called them out on is this guy a real representative of your training, it was not the joker poster it was an easy on the eyes blue back ground, we are at about a tipping point and this ignorant could be the spark that would have started it. Had I been there I would have put the poster back up and dared him to arrest me because I was “tresspassing” I would have sued Reston VA big time, we don’t need ignorant Nazis for cops, but ones trained well in crowd control and respect for the first amendment. Call me pissed, J.C.

HOLY LAW BREAKER!!!
What country does that officer think his O2 is coming from???
I’m just stunned!!! That has happened allot this past year though under this contemptible anti-american admin—-one would think that I would be totally used to it by now!

Wesley was yelling the truth when he said this ain’t America nomore. He’s right. Poor Wesley is just a typical cop. Just make up a charge if you can’t find something legitimate charge someone with. Imagine charging someone with trespassing on property that the citizens of Virginia taxpayer money paid for. What a joke. Poor Wesley is just embarrassed that his hero president has turned out to be a fool and is pissed off because people are dissing his president but he still has to support him because he’s brother. He has an impossible job in more ways than one.

tellit
Wesley dont have an impossible job. All he has to do is follow the law. He was being prejudice and played race politics. He looked at that poster and saw Obama’s face depicted in a manner that he didnt like.

What Wesley was saying to the citizen was that this is not America anymore, cause he thinks this is BLACK AMERICA and he was gonna stick it to white folks. Wesley showed his true colors. Wesley has some deep seated issues and he tried to get aggressive with the citizen (and I assume the citizen is white).

Tellit
And Wesley was not telling the truth. He is telling what he what he wants to believe. We are living in the age of youtube & when someone called out Wesley’s name and videoed him, he should had known better.

I believe that Wesley would had arrested the citizen and would had roughed that citizen up in back of squad car. We are living in troubling times… and I say this to imply that Wesley would had probably lost his head and did the unthinkable. So the citizen in very fortunate to be alive and well.

Arlene, It’s a shame it has come to this. As a white man I am not against voting for an African American as president just not this guy we currently have as president. Obama is a radical socialist and he is a danger to our country. He is causing a racial division in our county that is very disturbing to me.

Tellit,
Its that officer Cheeks is against white folks who he thinks oppose Obama. I bet he was peachy & nice to whites during the election. And once Obama won, he showed his ass.

I urged each & every of you (if you are white) to NOT go to these rallies ALONE. Please follow this good & life saving advice. If any cop take you in a squad car, make sure to have pre-plans to have someone to follow the squad car. Just in case.

Also a black conservative would be in immediate danger and targeted. So I know I better not go alone. I am the one who usually brings the cameras & videos. But I am never position on the outside. I’m usually inside the circle of the people I know. Obama supporters have tried to be slick in carving me out, but I try to not get baited.

tellitlikeitis: Wesley is not a typical cop. I am and have been for 33 years. The most embarassed, ashamed, astonished, frustrated group out there are the 99% of law enforcement officers that view this abomination and want to puke. Most of us are well trained, intelligent, honest, know the law, have communication skills, can separate our political beliefs with what we have the responsibility to do, don’t think in “racial” or “gender” terms. We definitely know that our job is to keep the peace while protecting our citizens safety and their rights… including their right to freedom of expression. This guy’s a dope. Every cop that’s been on the job for over a year will view this video and see the officer made so many mistakes… I’m just talking tactically, never mind taking cues from an idiot in the crowd and exhibiting a complete ignorance of the law. In my state violating a citizen’s rights under color of law is a felony. I can ASSURE you that the men and women in blue are not going to become “thugs” of the government and if the politicians think that is the case they will get a rude awakening. You might find a few idiots out there but the vast majority won’t let it happen. As far as the racial division in the country I can’t argue about that. Soldiers and cops have already resolved that issue a while ago and we are well beyond it… because we rely on each other to survive and experience things you wouldn’t wish on your worst enemy, but we do it together. If there is an area from which you can see some hope for our race relations, you can look to law enforcement for at least a little inspiration and a glimmer of hope.

CHEEKS abused his policepower for political reasons… and THAT is the problem.

He can worship Obama or a poodle for all I care… but using his police powers for political purposes is fascism.

tellitlikeitis says

Wesley was yelling the truth when he said this ain’t America nomore. He’s right. Poor Wesley is just a typical cop. Just make up a charge if you can’t find something legitimate charge someone with. Imagine charging someone with trespassing on property that the citizens of Virginia taxpayer money paid for. What a joke. Poor Wesley is just embarrassed that his hero president has turned out to be a fool and is pissed off because people are dissing his president but he still has to support him because he’s brother. He has an impossible job in more ways than one.

He is wrong when he says this is not America anymore. It is still America… but it is under Socialist Political Attack.

This guy is a poster boy for the brain washed Socislist Sheep and he also sees the world through Race Colored Lens.

And, he screwed up big time… as did Diane Watson whom I also wrote a blog post about yesterday.

Diane Watson is more important because she is a Congressional Representative [California] while this Cheeks character is a virtual nobody… till he got his ass YouTubed to hell.

LisaInTX says

HOLY LAW BREAKER!!!
What country does that officer think his O2 is coming from???
I’m just stunned!!! That has happened allot this past year though under this contemptible anti-american admin—-one would think that I would be totally used to it by now!

You hit the Nail on the Head… He thinks this is now a Black Race Controlled Country and now he can bully people politically using his police powers.

WRONG…. and Obama knows full well he treads a thin line and ran on a non-racial platform promising to be everyone’s president not a Racist President hell bent on tucking it to Whitey.

Truth be known.. he is a Racist President hell bent on tucking it to Whitey… but many non-blacks are just now realizing this hidden truth. The deal with Obama, with regards to Professor Gates, calling the Cambridge Police Department Stupid, was a crack in his sheep’s clothing… he outed himself as a Racist.

arlenearmy says

tellit
Wesley dont have an impossible job. All he has to do is follow the law. He was being prejudice and played race politics. He looked at that poster and saw Obama’s face depicted in a manner that he didnt like.

What Wesley was saying to the citizen was that this is not America anymore, cause he thinks this is BLACK AMERICA and he was gonna stick it to white folks. Wesley showed his true colors. Wesley has some deep seated issues and he tried to get aggressive with the citizen (and I assume the citizen is white).

The racial division Obama is creating is strategic… another Socialist Tool to divide and conquer the population and create a situation which give them a reason and justification to declare martial law and suspend the constitution and pave the way to destroy it as a set of federal laws.

Why do you think I strongly urge folks to delete the violence solution as an option to deal with what is going on? That is EXACTLY what the Socialist are trying to incite so they can lower the hammer on the entire population via Martial Law and the suspension of the Constitution and Habeas Corpus.

If anyone here is hazy on the meaning of Habeas Corpus you are advised to get up to speed on it…

Habaes Corpus in a nutshell:

real due process to contest the accusations against you.

With Habeas Corpus suspended the government can arrest you and keep you locked up as long as they want for any reason they want and you can not do anything about it.

Back in July at Firestone Park in Akron, Ohio a Family was attacked by a group of 30 or more black teens. The Teens were shouting “Get out of our Country” to this white family. The Father of the Family was beaten and Hospitalized from the attack. The Story was later pulled along with the video and the case went unsolved. I tried to find the link this morning to no avail.

Obama is already engineering the means to invoke Martial Law using the Flu Card.

And his pal Daval Patrick, a Black RINO and governor of Massachusetts is all set to sign into law a bill that makes not getting a flu shot a crime punishable of $1000 a day and detention in a FEMA camp or jail… additionally if you do not submit to government ordered testing or anything else they want you to do same thing applies.

This bill just passed the Massachusetts Senate and is headed to the Mass House of Representatives. Massachusetts is busy creating the means to declare martial law using flu as an excuse. Folks… this is the flu, we have a flu virus every year… since when was martial law declared over the flu?

And take the bill giving Obama the power to hit the Kill Switch on the Internet.

The Socialists are Preparing a Table and you will all be invited… as an oppressed population of a former Democracy with a Constitution.

I believe you Dave. Know that I do not paint with a broad brush. Thank you for your service to us, dear.

Dave B says

tellitlikeitis: Wesley is not a typical cop. I am and have been for 33 years. The most embarassed, ashamed, astonished, frustrated group out there are the 99% of law enforcement officers that view this abomination and want to puke.

I am sure the Socialists have had this under study and design for over 30 years… waiting for the right time. Obama is the segway to this all out political attack… why do you think they attack ObamaCare and Tea Party Protesters so viciously and use their plants in the Main Stream Media to smear and besmirch everyone who Opposes the Socialist’s Tools for destroying the democracy and the constitution?

We are the one thing they can not control… and united and awake and pushing back… we are way more powerful than they are.

We Scare The Holy Crap out of the Socialists!

Why on earth do you think they have spent millions to attack and besmirch Sarah Palin instead of other Conservative Politicians?

Her Power to Unite Conservatives and Moderates is Socialist Kryptonite.

Why do you think I keep blogging about Sarah Palin as often as possible?

She is the Reagan of 2009… the singular power to unite that which the Socialists Fear Most… US!

I have to put a certain degree of Faith in the above mentioned Organizations in that they too like us are Americans First. I am hoping that if push comes to shove that Obama will be in for a rude awakening. Perhaps this explains the need for a Civilian Security Force?

Either way I still see the great Division as a potential danger to our way of life. I do believe that Obama wants a Second Civil War once he has his powers fully established. That of course is just my opinion on the matter.

Calling it a “terrible decision” that undermines national security and devastates CIA morale, former Vice President Dick Cheney slammed the Obama administration’s probe of aggressive interrogation of terrorists.

“It’s an outrageous political act that will do great damage, long-term, to our capacity to be able to have people take on difficult jobs, make difficult decisions, without having to worry about what the next administration is going to say,” Cheney told “FOX News Sunday” in a no-holds-barred interview.

In blunt, unsparing language, Cheney accused President Obama of setting a “terrible precedent” by launching an “intensely partisan, politicized look back at the prior administration.” He seemed to question Obama’s fitness as commander-in-chief.

“I have serious doubts about his policies,” Cheney told FOX News’ Chris Wallace in Jackson Hole, Wyo. “Serious doubts, especially, about the extent to which he understands and is prepared to do what needs to be done to defend the nation.”

As evidence, Cheney pointed to Obama’s decision last week to assert White House control over a newly formed unit that will interrogate terrorists. The new arrangement shifts control of such interrogations away from the CIA and toward the FBI, although oversight will be exercised by the National Security Council, which is located in the White House and reports directly to the president.

Administration officials are vague about which agency will retain ultimate authority. Obama spokesman Bill Burton initially said the new unit “will report to the director of the FBI,” although the Justice Department, which encompasses the FBI, insisted the unit is “not a sub-unit of the FBI or the Justice Department.”

Burton explained: “Just like other interagency processes, if there are disagreements, the different agencies are able to come together and make a decision.”

Cheney ridiculed the new unit, which will be known as the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group (HIG).

“It’s not even clear who’s responsible,” he marveled. “The Justice Department is, then they claim they aren’t. The FBI is responsible, and they claim they aren’t. It’s some kind of interagency process by which they’re going to be responsible for interrogating high-value detainees.

“If we had tried to do that back in the aftermath of 9/11, when we captured Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11, we’d have gotten no place,” he said.

Cheney predicted the new unit will be incapable of effectively interrogating “people that may have knowledge about imminent attacks.”

“They’re going to have to have meetings and decide who gets to ask what question and who’s going to Mirandize the witness,” he said. “I think it’s silly. It makes no sense. It doesn’t appear to be a serious move in terms of being able to deal with the nation’s security.”

Cheney warned that curtailing the CIA’s role in interrogations is a grave mistake.

“I think it’s a direct slap at the CIA. I don’t think it will work,” he said. “It moves very much in the direction of going back to the old way of looking at these terrorist attacks — that these are law enforcement problems, that this isn’t a strategic threat to the United States.”

But Cheney reserved his strongest criticism for Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision Monday to appoint a prosecutor and open a criminal investigation into alleged abuses by CIA agents who interrogated terrorists during the administration of former President George W. Bush. The former vice president accused Obama of breaking a promise not to prosecute the agents.

“We had the president of the United States, President Obama, tell us a few months ago there wouldn’t be any investigation like this, that there would not be any look back at CIA personnel who were carrying out the policies of the prior administration,” Cheney said. “Now they get a little heat from the left wing of the Democratic Party, and they’re reversing course on that.”

In January, just days before he took office, Obama assured CIA agents they need not worry about prosecution.

“We need to look forward, as opposed to looking backwards,” the president-elect said. “At the CIA you’ve got extraordinarily talented people who are working very hard to keep Americans safe. I don’t want them to suddenly feel like they’ve got to spend all their time looking over their shoulders and lawyering up.”

In April, after disclosing classified documents that detailed the CIA’s enhanced interrogation techniques, Obama said: “This is a time for reflection, not retribution.”

“Nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past,” the president added. “For those who carried out some of these operations within the four corners of legal opinions or guidance that had been provided from the White House, I do not think it’s appropriate for them to be prosecuted.”

At the time, Holder added: “It would be unfair to prosecute dedicated men and women working to protect America for conduct that was sanctioned in advance by the Justice Department.”

In his interview with FOX News, Cheney disputed the administration’s assertion last week that the decision to go after the CIA agents was made by Holder, not Obama.

“If you look at the Constitution, the President of the United States is the chief law enforcement officer in the land,” Cheney said. “The attorney general’s a statutory officer. He’s a member of the Cabinet. The president’s the one who bears this responsibility.”

Cheney said it was disingenuous of Obama “to say, ‘Gee, I didn’t have anything to do with it,’ especially after he sat in the Oval Office and said this wouldn’t happen. Then Holder decides he’s going to do it. So now he’s backed off and is claiming he’s not responsible.

Cheney pointed out that the Justice Department already investigated all the cases in question during the Bush administration and decided to prosecute only one contractor, who received a jail sentence.

“The matter’s been dealt with the way you would expect it to be dealt with by professionals,” Cheney said. “Now we’ve got a political appointee coming back, and supposedly without the approval of the president, going to do a complete review, or another complete investigation, possible prosecution of CIA personnel.”

He added: “A review is never going to be final anymore now. We can have somebody, some future administration, come along 10 years from now, 15 years from now, and go back and rehash all of these decisions by an earlier administration.

Cheney vigorously defended the CIA.

“In the intelligence arena, we ask those people to do some very difficult things, sometimes, that put their own lives at risk,” he said. “They do so at the direction of the president. In this case, we had specific legal authority from the Justice Department. And if they are now going to be subject to being investigated and prosecuted by the next administration, nobody’s going to sign up for those kinds of missions.

“It’s a very, very devastating, I think, effect that it has on morale inside the intelligence community.”

TOKYO – Japan’s Prime Minister Taro Aso conceded defeat in elections Sunday as media exit polls indicated the opposition had won by a landslide, sending the conservatives out of power after 54 years of nearly unbroken rule amid widespread economic anxiety and desire for change.

“These results are very severe,” Aso said in a news conference at party headquarters, conceding his party was headed for a big loss. “There has been a deep dissatisfaction with our party.”

Aso said he would have to accept responsibility for the results, suggesting that he would resign as party president. Other LDP leaders also said they would step down, though official results were not to be released until early Monday morning.

The left-of-center Democratic Party of Japan was set to win 300 or more of the 480 seats in the lower house of parliament, ousting the Liberal Democrats, who have governed Japan for all but 11 months since 1955, according to exit polls by all major Japanese TV networks.

The loss by the Liberal Democrats — traditionally a pro-business, conservative party — would open the way for the Democratic Party, headed by Yukio Hatoyama, to replace Aso and establish a new Cabinet, possibly within the next few weeks.

The vote was seen as a barometer of frustrations over Japan’s worst economic slump since World War II and a loss of confidence in the ruling Liberal Democrats’ ability to tackle tough problems such as the rising national debt and rapidly aging population.

The Democrats have embraced a more populist platform, promising handouts for families with children and farmers and a higher minimum wage.

The Democrats have also said they will seek a more independent relationship with Washington, while forging closer ties with Japan’s Asian neighbors, including China. But Hatoyama, who holds a doctorate in engineering from Stanford University, insists he will not seek dramatic change in Japan’s foreign policy, saying the U.S.-Japan alliance would “continue to be the cornerstone of Japanese diplomatic policy.”

National broadcaster NHK, using projections based on exit polls of roughly 400,000 voters, said the Democratic Party was set to win 300 seats and the Liberal Democrats only about 100. TV Asahi, another major network, said the Democratic Party would win 315 seats.

The LDP’s secretary-general, Hiroyuki Hosoda, said he and two other top officials plan to submit their resignations to Aos, who serves as president of the party.

As voting closed Sunday night, officials said turnout was high, despite an approaching typhoon, indicating the intense level of public interest in the hotly contested campaigns.

“We’ve worked so hard to achieve a leadership change and that has now become almost certain thanks to the support of many voters,” said Yoshihiko Noda, a senior member of the DPJ. “We feel a strong sense of responsibility to achieve each of our campaign promises.”

Ruling party leaders said they were devastated by the results.

“I feel deeply the impact of this vote,” former Prime Minister Shintaro Abe, a leading Liberal Democratic Party member, told television network TBS. “Our party must work to return to power.”

Even before the vote was over, the Democrats pounded the ruling party for driving the country into a ditch.

Japan’s unemployment has spiked to record 5.7 percent while deflation has intensified and families have cut spending because they are insecure about the future.

Making the situation more dire is Japan’s aging demographic — which means more people are on pensions and there is a shrinking pool of taxpayers to support them and other government programs.

“The ruling party has betrayed the people over the past four years, driving the economy to the edge of a cliff, building up more than 6 trillion yen ($64.1 billion) in public debt, wasting money, ruining our social security net and widening the gap between the rich and poor,” the Democratic Party said in a statement as voting began Sunday.

“We will change Japan,” it said.

Hatoyama’s party held 112 seats before parliament was dissolved in July.

The Democratic Party would only need to win a simple majority of 241 seats in the lower house to assure that it can name the next prime minister. The 300-plus level would allow it and its two smaller allies the two-thirds majority they need in the lower house to pass bills.

Many voters said that although the Democrats are largely untested in power and doubts remain about whether they will be able to deliver on their promises, the country needs a change.

“We don’t know if the Democrats can really make a difference, but we want to give them a chance,” Junko Shinoda, 59, a government employee, said after voting at a crowded polling center in downtown Tokyo.

Having the Democrats in power would smooth policy debates in parliament, which has been deadlocked since the Democrats and their allies took over the less powerful upper house in 2007.

With only two weeks of official campaigning that focused mainly on broadstroke appeals rather than specific policies, many analysts said the elections were not so much about issues as voters’ general desire for something new after more than a half century under the Liberal Democrats.

The Democrats are proposing toll-free highways, free high schools, income support for farmers, monthly allowances for job seekers in training, a higher minimum wage and tax cuts. The estimated bill comes to 16.8 trillion yen ($179 billion) if fully implemented starting in fiscal year 2013.

Aso — whose own support ratings have sagged to a dismal 20 percent — repeatedly stressed his party led Japan’s rise from the ashes of World War II into one of the world’s biggest economic powers and are best equipped to get it out of its current morass.

But the current state of the economy has been a major liability for his party.

“It’s revolutionary,” said Tomoaki Iwai, a political science professor at Tokyo’s Nihon University. “It’s the first real change of government” Japan has had in six decades.

Morning all. I came across this at a site devoted to EMS. It would be instructive to see how this would interface with Government run office within or outside the White House to command and control the internet during times of a declared emergency. For that action, there should be advise and consent – some kind of checks and balances for a swift response. Our infrastructure should be shielded by firewalls and by innovative technology to protect it without having to take down the internet. The way things are now, the damage would have been done before the internet could be taken down!

Open Airways
Open Airways: Stories from the back of the ambulance
EMS responders share some of the most meaningful cases of their careers, sometimes with humor and always with compassion. We hope that they will help us improve your practice and inspire a new generation of caregivers.

Imminent Birth
The Big Picture
Lessons Learned on the Way
Between Two Vehicles

More on EMSResponder.com
EMS Magazine Monthly Insider
An inside look into the upcoming issue of EMS Magazine and interview with featured writer.

ARLINGTON, VA — Today, the formation of the Next Generation Safety Consortium (NGSC) was formally announced by its more than thirty charter members. The group brings together national emergency response, medical, academic, and communications organizations with leading disability rights representatives, public media and supporting government entities. By jointly seeking funding and participating in activities to enable the deployment of next generation emergency information and communications technology (ICT) for Next Generation emergency communications, the groups intend to raise awareness and demonstrate the significant benefits of broadband for emergency response. The end result–increased broadband adoption by a community that has traditionally not relied on the technology, and improved quality of service for individuals involved in emergencies.

“Expanded availability and use of broadband has empowered millions of consumers and businesses across the county,” said National Emergency Number Association (NENA) CEO Brian Fontes. “The same revolution is needed in the world of 9-1-1 and emergency response, but demand for, and use of, broadband has been nearly non-existent in this sector. The Next Generation Safety Consortium intends to change this by engaging in activities designed to unleash the power of broadband for 9-1-1, emergency communications and emergency medical response,” added Fontes.

“We are pleased to be part of a consortium that promotes enhanced broadband capabilities for the many organizations involved in emergency response including the robust and secure networks connecting these organizations, and the multiple services and applications enabled by improved broadband access. Ensuring that emergency response services have state of the art broadband capabilities will lead to significantly improved services for the public good. This should be a national priority,” said Gary Bachula, Internet2 vice president of external relations.

“Today’s communications technology far too often leaves a large segment of our country behind, particularly when it comes to access to 9-1-1 and other critical emergency services for individuals with disabilities,” said Marcia Brooks, Project Director for the WGBH National Center for Accessible Media (NCAM). “Broadband technology, and the services and applications it enables, will improve emergency response, healthcare and education for all Americans, especially those with disabilities. We are pleased with the commitment of the Next Generation Safety Consortium to improve access to emergency services for the millions of Americans with disabilities and excited to join our partners in this innovative effort.”

Numerous government agencies, including state-level 9-1-1, emergency communications and homeland security agencies in Minnesota, Texas, Washington, Alabama, Indiana, South Dakota and Montana have signed on as supporters of the Consortium. “We look forward to working with the Consortium and its diverse members to facilitate the deployment of modern broadband-enabled next generation emergency response,” said Jim Walker, Director of the Alabama Department of Homeland Security.

“By providing a focus on the need for shared services and technologies necessary for Next Generation 9-1-1 and emergency communications, and enabling the development of these elements one time as part of a national initiative, states, regions, and localities will be able to avoid costly, time consuming, and unnecessarily duplicative efforts,” added Paul Mallett, Executive Director of the Texas Commission on State Emergency Communications. “It will also provide incentives for organizations involved in 9-1-1, emergency communications, and emergency medical response to accelerate their demand for broadband networks, and the services and applications made possible by broadband,” said Mallett.

As a first step in helping to realize the goals of the Consortium, NENA will be submitting an initial proposal on behalf of the Consortium to the sustainable broadband adoption Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP) at the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA).

More information about the Next Generation Safety Consortium can be found at the group’s newly launched website, http://www.nextgensafety.org.

Consortium Members and Supporters:

* Next Generation Safety Consortium Members
* Alliance of Information and Referral Systems
* American Association of Poison Control Centers
* American Telemedicine Association
* Association of Public Safety-Communications Officials International
* Ball State University
* Columbia University
* Emergency Interoperability Consortium
* Federation of American Scientists
* Gallaudet University RERC on Telecommunications Access
* IJIS Institute
* Illinois Institute of Technology
* Internet2
* Kristin Brooks Hope Center and the National Hopeline Network 1-800-SUICIDE
* Link2Health Solutions (a subsidiary of the Mental Health Association of New York City, Inc.)
* Mayo Clinic Medical Transport
* N-1-1/8XX Essential Services Interoperability Council
* National Association of State 9-1-1 Administrators
* National Association of State CIOs
* National Association of State EMS Officials
* National Emergency Number Association
* National LambdaRail
* National Public Radio
* Network Centric Operations Industry Consortium
* Open Geospatial Consortium
* The Open Group
* SRI International
* Texas A&M University
* Texas Engineering Extension Service (TEEX)
* United Way of America
* University of South Alabama Center for Health Innovations
* WGBH National Center for Accessible Media
* 2-1-1 US

Next Generation Safety Consortium Supporting Government Agencies and Non-Profit Associations:

Printable version may be for personal use only. Content may not be duplicated, re-used or otherwise replicated without expressed, written consent from EMSResponder.com and/or the original author/source.

Did you know you have been runnibng as the header on Conservative Blog Network for the last day. This is such a great story catching this guy making a fool of himself and his police station. I posted it yesterday, called left a message and sent an email immediately, hope this guy gets some unpaid leave. I’ve personally had run ins with cops like this when I was younger, no more since I’ve been reading the constitution. I’m Jim

Jim, I’ve learned more about the Constitution since I’ve been blogging than I ever did in school. It’s amazing how we’ve let this get out of hand. Since FDR started packing the courts during his 4 term stench (stint), the judges have used the more modern, liberal use of the language in the Constitution, instead of the original intent. Our founding fathers were for LIMITED government, not MORE government.

The public school indoctrination system has dumbed us down intentionally so we don’t know what our rights are.

Dave B., If you are still out there. I do apologize for painting all law enforcement with a broad brush. With the very few encounters I have had with law enforcement and I do have the utmost respect for your profession. Unfortunately there are those bullies in law enfocemant that like to throw their weight around and use their badge to justify their actions. Officer Cheeks is just one example. I will end my comment by saying I have the utmost respect and support for our men and women in uniform whether they be in law enforcement or in the military.

There was some earlier discussion about Martial Law. I agree that that is Obama’s goal. He wants to be the US dictator and not the president.The question is who will enforce it. I don’t believe Law enforcement or the US military will turn against it’s own people. I believe it will be UN peace keepers or the Chinese since they have a large vested interest in this country.

Tellit,
I think you are correct. Obama is not concerned w/the democrat party. He is gearing up to take over America. If I didnt know any better, I would say that he is gearing up to become a Shaka Zullu.

But w/any take over, any leader needs a military. And we all know who that military morelikely will be (albeit rag tag & ill-disciplined in nature).

Dave B who is in law enforcement wrote.”I can ASSURE you that the men and women in blue are not going to become “thugs” of the government and if the politicians think that is the case they will get a rude awakening. ”
I believe him and I believe he speaks for the majority of people in Law enforcement. This gives me much reassurence. If Martial Law is ever declared I believe law enforcemant and the military will be our allies and not our enemy.

Tellit,
Just imagine a group of gang-bangers assembling to be a security force. They would be the kind of men who would rape the women. They would recruit young boys like they do in Africa. I hate to think of who would be the general of that military. Perhaps Farrakhan.

Arlene , How can they dissarm the American people? Who will enforce it? Do they think the American people will just give up their arms? I think not! The passion for the second amendment runs higher than these communist can even imagine. Those f^ckers in Washington are dreaming if they think the people in this country are going to just give up their firearms and let them try to conficate them at their own peril. They can pass all the unconstitutional laws they want. The people will just ignore them.

Tellit
Little over 10 yrs. ago, there was an enticement to get folks to turn in their guns for some cheezy ass gift certificate. It was some kind of nationwide effort to down-size fire arms. I was surprise at the folks who turned in good guns. I think it was some law-enforcement agency that sponsored that drive.

Arlene, They have had those firearms turn in programs for awhile all over the country. Most of the firearms turned in on those programs are cheap junk that won’t even fire off a round but there are some that were quality firearms. These programs are instituded by local governments for publicity purposes and have no real effect on crime. If there is a government firearm turn in program some will comply but most will not.

just got this from a guy at the military dept, we worked and traveled together, I saw him at the townhall the other day.

“Somewhere a True Believer is training to kill you. He is training with minimal food or water, in austere conditions, training day and night. The only thing clean on him is his weapon and he made his web gear. He doesn’t worry about what workout to do – his ruck weighs what it weighs, his runs end when the enemy stops chasing him. This True Believer is not concerned about ‘how hard it is;’ he knows either he wins or dies. He doesn’t go home at 17:00, he is home. He knows only The Cause.
Still want to quit?”

Robert Benmosche, AIG’s new chief executive, will receive annual pay of $7m in cash and shares and be in line for a bonus of $3.5m a year, the government-controlled insurer announced on Monday.

Mr Benmosche’s package has been approved “in principle” by the Obama administration’s “pay czar” Kenneth Feinberg in a move aimed at avoiding a repeat of the political row that broke out earlier this year over bonuses for AIG’s staff.
EDITOR’S CHOICE
Harvey Golub to become AIG chairman – Aug-07
Greenberg pays $15m in SEC settlement – Aug-06

Edward Liddy, Mr Benmosche’s predecessor who stepped down this month, agreed to receive $1 in pay after lawmakers attacked the insurer for paying out bonuses to some traders despite having received some $80bn in taxpayers’ funds.

However, people close to the situation said Mr Benmosche, a former chief executive of rival insurer MetLife, had made it clear it would only take the job if he were paid a salary and a bonus.

Under his pay deal, Mr Benmosche, 65, will receive a cash salary of $3m a year plus $4m worth of shares in AIG, which he will be barred from selling for five years. His annual bonus – to be awarded by the board depending on his performance – could total up to $3.5m in shares.

The terms of Mr Benmosche’s package underline a trend toward increasing base salaries and reducing bonuses at US financial services companies following the crisis.

I don’t know at what point and for what reason the war in Afghanistan is now Obama’s war, but it has happened. With American death tolls rising and civilian casualties from ordinance, it is not a rosy picture.

By Clive Crook

Published: August 30 2009 19:51 | Last updated: August 30 2009 19:51

Except for a pause to honour Senator Edward Kennedy, healthcare reform has dominated US news and comment for weeks. It is seen as the make-or-break challenge for Barack Obama’s administration. Yet soon it may look unimportant in comparison with an issue that the US public has barely seemed to notice: the war in Afghanistan.

Casualties there are mounting – this has been the deadliest month for US forces since the fighting began in 2001. The losses have attracted less attention in the US than British losses have in Britain, and pressure on the administration to pull out has been mild. But this will change. When it does, Mr Obama will longingly recall those carefree months debating healthcare.

Quietly, public opinion has already turned against the war. According to a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, 51 per cent now say the war is not worth fighting. Among Democrats, seven out of 10 say that.

A recent Economist/YouGov poll found that only 32 per cent agree with sending more troops – something the army is expected to request imminently. To the question “What do you think will eventually happen?” came a response to thrill every Taliban fighter: 65 per cent said “The United States will withdraw without winning” and only 35 per cent “The United States will win”.

The issue has not yet come to the boil but Mr Obama’s position is as difficult as it could possibly be. This is now his war. He asserted ownership again only recently, calling the conflict for the hundredth time “a necessary war”, unlike his predecessor’s supposedly needless “war of choice” in Iraq.

Yet Mr Obama’s war, necessary or not, will be hard to win, and impossible without greater expense of lives and money. Withdrawal, meanwhile, involves great dangers of its own. To complete the president’s quandary, his rationale for the war is unconvincing and, as the polls confirm, his strongest opposition comes from his own party.

Patients in Health Service hospitals are far more likely to go hungry than criminals in jail, scientists warned yesterday.
They say frail and elderly patients do not get the help they need with meals, and nobody checks whether they get enough to eat.
Despite years of Government promises to tackle poor hospital nutrition, food still arrives cold, and patients often miss out because meal times clash with tests and operations.

Helping hand: But nurses say they are too busy to help every elderly patient with their meals

Meanwhile, prisoners are enjoying carbohydrate-rich, low-fat foods which in many cases are better than they would have been eating on the outside.
The Daily Mail has been highlighting the scandal of old people not being fed properly in hospital as part of its Dignity for the Elderly campaign.
Hospital meals are often taken away untouched, because they are either unappetising or are placed out of patients’ reach.
The latest figures show 242 patients died of malnutrition in NHS hospitals in 2007 – the highest toll in a decade. More than 8,000 left hospital under-nourished – double the figure when Labour came to power.
The NHS throws away 11million meals every year, and many nurses say they are too busy to help the frail eat.
Earlier this year the Mail revealed that some hospitals spend less on meals than the average prison.
Ten hospitals spent less on breakfast, lunch and an evening meal than the £2.12 a day allocated for food by the prison service. One spent just £1.
Although most hospitals do spend more than £2.12, prisoners end up better nourished than patients, say experts from Bournemouth University. After studying the food offered to inmates and across the NHS, they found patients face more barriers in getting good nutrition.
Professor John Edwards said around 40 per cent of patients were already malnourished when they were admitted to hospital, but their condition did not tend to improve while they were there.
‘If you are in prison then the diet you get is extremely good in terms of nutritional content,’ he said.
‘The food that is provided is actually better than most civilians have.
‘There’s a focus on carbohydrates, then there’s the way they prepare the food, it’s very healthy. They don’t add salt and there’s relatively little frying of food – if you have a burger then it goes in the oven. Hospital patients don’t consume enough.
‘And from the work we’ve done we know that people who sit round a table eat a lot more, but this doesn’t happen in hospitals.’
His colleague, Dr Heather Hartwell, said fruit and vegetables were given out in hospitals ‘but this doesn’t mean it’s eaten’.
While patients suffer due to a loss of appetite as a result of their illness, they often go hungry because there is no one to help them eat.
‘Failure': Liberal Democrat health spokesman Norman Lamb says standards must improve

Dr Hartwell said once food was prepared, it generally hangs around waiting for porters to transport it to patients. Then it may be left on wards until it goes cold.

‘Ward staff also don’t actually know how much patients are eating because it is domestics who clear the trays away,’ she said. ‘This is an example of fragmentation in hospitals that does not necessarily happen in prisons.’
The research found temperature and texture are among the most important factors in patients’ satisfaction with food.
It concluded lack of appetite due to a medical problem is probably the main reason for under-nutrition, but said hospitals can make improvements.
Liberal Democrat health spokesman Norman Lamb said: ‘It’s incredible that so many hospitals are failing to serve healthy meals. If prisons can serve good food then so can hospitals.’

The Department of Health said: ‘The majority of patients are satisfied with the food they receive in hospitals, and we are working to improve services further.
‘The Nutrition Action Plan, Improving Nutritional Care, outlines how nutritional care and hydration can be improved and highlights five key priority areas for NHS and social care staff to work with.
‘We have also introduced the concept of “protected mealtimes” where all non-urgent activity on the ward stops, so that patients can enjoy their meals.’

Sunday, August 30, 2009
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows that 32% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-two percent (42%) Strongly Disapprove. That’s the highest level of Strong Disapproval yet recorded for this President and it gives Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -10 (see trends).

If Americans could vote to keep or replace the entire Congress, 57% would throw out all the legislators and start over again. Just 25% would vote to keep the Congress.

Check out our review of last week’s key polls to see “What They Told Us.” Also, check out our home page to keep up to date with the latest current events polling. If it’s in the news, it’s in our polls.

The Presidential Approval Index is calculated by subtracting the number who Strongly Disapprove from the number who Strongly Approve. It is updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update). Updates also available on Twitter and Facebook.

Overall, 47% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President’s performance. That matches the lowest total approval yet measured for Obama. Fifty-two percent (52%) now disapprove

Support for the health care reform package proposed by the President and Congressional Democrats has stopped falling, but most voters are still opposed.

Scott Rasmussen has recently had three analysis columns published in the Wall Street Journal. The most recent was on health care. Earlier columns were on the President’s approval ratings and how Obama won the White House by campaigning like Ronald Reagan. If you’d like Scott Rasmussen to speak at your meeting, retreat, or conference, contact Premiere Speakers Bureau. You can also learn about Scott’s favorite place on earth or his time working with hockey legend Gordie Howe.

It is important to remember that the Rasmussen Reports job approval ratings are based upon a sample of likely voters. Some other firms base their approval ratings on samples of all adults. President Obama’s numbers are always several points higher in a poll of adults rather than likely voters. That’s because some of the President’s most enthusiastic supporters, such as young adults, are less likely to turn out to vote. Other factors are also important to consider when comparing Job Approval ratings from different polling firms.

A Fordham University professor rated the national pollsters on their record in Election 2008. We also have provided a summary of our results for your review. In 2008, Obama won 53%-46% and our final poll showed Obama winning 52% to 46%. While we were pleased with the final result, Rasmussen Reports was especially pleased that our data was the least volatile of all the tracking polls. Our daily tracking showed Obama with a stable lead and more than 50% of the vote every single day for the last six weeks of the campaign.

In 2004 George W. Bush received 50.7% of the vote while John Kerry earned 48.3%. Rasmussen Reports was the only firm to project both candidates’ totals within half a percentage point by projecting that Bush would win 50.2% to 48.5%.

Daily tracking results are collected via telephone surveys of 500 likely voters per night and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. The margin of sampling error—for the full sample of 1,500 Likely Voters–is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Results are also compiled on a full-week basis and crosstabs for full-week results are available for Premium Members.

Like all polling firms, Rasmussen Reports weights its data to reflect the population at large (see methodology). Among other targets, Rasmussen Reports weights data by political party affiliation using a dynamic weighting process. While partisan affiliation is generally quite stable over time, there are a fair number of people who waver between allegiance to a particular party or independent status. Over the past four years, the number of Democrats in the country has increased while the number of Republicans has decreased.

Our baseline targets are established based upon separate survey interviews with a sample of adults nationwide completed during the preceding three months (a total of 45,000 interviews) and targets are updated monthly. Currently, the baseline targets for the adult population are 38.4% Democrats, 32.7% Republicans, and 28.9% unaffiliated. Likely voter samples typically show a slightly smaller advantage for the Democrats.

A review of last week’s key polls is posted each Saturday morning. Other stats on Obama are updated daily on the Rasmussen Reports Obama By the Numbers page. We also invite you to review other recent demographic highlights from the tracking polls.

Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.

They’re not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773 (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.

The new version would allow the president to “declare a cybersecurity emergency” relating to “non-governmental” computer networks and do what’s necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for “cybersecurity professionals,” and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license.

“I think the redraft, while improved, remains troubling due to its vagueness,” said Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance, which counts representatives of Verizon, Verisign, Nortel, and Carnegie Mellon University on its board. “It is unclear what authority Sen. Rockefeller thinks is necessary over the private sector. Unless this is clarified, we cannot properly analyze, let alone support the bill.”

Representatives of other large Internet and telecommunications companies expressed concerns about the bill in a teleconference with Rockefeller’s aides this week, but were not immediately available for interviews on Thursday.

A spokesman for Rockefeller also declined to comment on the record Thursday, saying that many people were unavailable because of the summer recess. A Senate source familiar with the bill compared the president’s power to take control of portions of the Internet to what President Bush did when grounding all aircraft on Sept. 11, 2001. The source said that one primary concern was the electrical grid, and what would happen if it were attacked from a broadband connection.

When Rockefeller, the chairman of the Senate Commerce committee, and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) introduced the original bill in April, they claimed it was vital to protect national cybersecurity. “We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs–from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records,” Rockefeller said.

The Rockefeller proposal plays out against a broader concern in Washington, D.C., about the government’s role in cybersecurity. In May, President Obama acknowledged that the government is “not as prepared” as it should be to respond to disruptions and announced that a new cybersecurity coordinator position would be created inside the White House staff. Three months later, that post remains empty, one top cybersecurity aide has quit, and some wags have begun to wonder why a government that receives failing marks on cybersecurity should be trusted to instruct the private sector what to do.

Rockefeller’s revised legislation seeks to reshuffle the way the federal government addresses the topic. It requires a “cybersecurity workforce plan” from every federal agency, a “dashboard” pilot project, measurements of hiring effectiveness, and the implementation of a “comprehensive national cybersecurity strategy” in six months–even though its mandatory legal review will take a year to complete.

The privacy implications of sweeping changes implemented before the legal review is finished worry Lee Tien, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco. “As soon as you’re saying that the federal government is going to be exercising this kind of power over private networks, it’s going to be a really big issue,” he says.

Probably the most controversial language begins in Section 201, which permits the president to “direct the national response to the cyber threat” if necessary for “the national defense and security.” The White House is supposed to engage in “periodic mapping” of private networks deemed to be critical, and those companies “shall share” requested information with the federal government. (“Cyber” is defined as anything having to do with the Internet, telecommunications, computers, or computer networks.)

“The language has changed but it doesn’t contain any real additional limits,” EFF’s Tien says. “It simply switches the more direct and obvious language they had originally to the more ambiguous (version)…The designation of what is a critical infrastructure system or network as far as I can tell has no specific process. There’s no provision for any administrative process or review. That’s where the problems seem to start. And then you have the amorphous powers that go along with it.”

Translation: If your company is deemed “critical,” a new set of regulations kick in involving who you can hire, what information you must disclose, and when the government would exercise control over your computers or network.

The Internet Security Alliance’s Clinton adds that his group is “supportive of increased federal involvement to enhance cyber security, but we believe that the wrong approach, as embodied in this bill as introduced, will be counterproductive both from an national economic and national secuity perspective.”

The president of the United States has always had the constitutional authority, and duty, to protect the American people and direct the national response to any emergency that threatens the security and safety of the United States. The Rockefeller-Snowe Cybersecurity bill makes it clear that the president’s authority includes securing our national cyber infrastructure from attack. The section of the bill that addresses this issue, applies specifically to the national response to a severe attack or natural disaster. This particular legislative language is based on longstanding statutory authorities for wartime use of communications networks. To be very clear, the Rockefeller-Snowe bill will not empower a “government shutdown or takeover of the Internet” and any suggestion otherwise is misleading and false. The purpose of this language is to clarify how the president directs the public-private response to a crisis, secure our economy and safeguard our financial networks, protect the American people, their privacy and civil liberties, and coordinate the government’s response.

Foxwood, the Deep Purple lineup in the still photo of the montage video you posted yesterday is not the lineup who actually performed that song. Nick Simper and Rod Evan were the original vocalist and bassman, and that’s Ian Gillan/vocals in the front row of the pic, and Roger Glover/bassman and producer over his left shoulder. For a real kick, look for this on youtube as (Deep Purple- And The Address-Hush-Live1968) and you’ll find an old filmed piece from Hef’s mansion of the original DP lineup performing this with 60’s chicks and funky cats crowding in on the band from all sides, in front of what looks like Hef’s home entertainment wall. Richie Blackmore, guitarist, always a surly one, looks positively mortified to be filmed doing this, but he still manages to tear it up in the live performance. It’s funny to hear Hef trying to sound hip introducing them, and talking to Jon Lord/organist about what would ‘really groove the kids’.